Q: In light of the widespread flu outbreak, should all employers in California be required to provide paid sick time off?

Panel's answer: 2 Yes , 6 No

Sometimes “we," who work for others, don’t require government protection or intervention to achieve or acquire compensation and benefits. Generally speaking, employers organize their compensation packages so prospective employees can review them in advance of deciding to take the job offered or wait for another, better offer. A small business owner, and friend, suggested paying for and giving employees time off to get the flu shot, helping both sides, would be more appropriate. Also, the small business owner wants to know who he should go to to get the paid sick time off.

From an epidemiological standpoint, requiring paid sick time could reduce the spread of communicable diseases. Economically, however, there are additional issues at stake. Mandates such as this depress employment, particularly among the lowest paid workers in various industries. California would find itself even further behind other states having no such mandate. Rather than adding another regulatory requirement, it would seem a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and already experiencing an outflow of employers should not be adding another restriction. While getting the flu is a bad thing, not having a job is usually worse.

Businesses on their own should give workers paid sick leave, particularly restaurants and retailers, due to the large amount of contact employees in those industries have with the public. Businesses would benefit, as it would make their workers more productive and reduce the costs associated with employee turnover. Unfortunately, workers in restaurants and retailing are among those least likely to get paid sick leave and may even face termination for missing work. As a result, workers often work when they are sick, leading to the spread of illnesses such as the flu. Thus, paid sick leave should be mandated for public health reasons.

This is one of those proposals that sounds nice in theory, and of course we’d hope that every employer could do this. But if you knew the specifics of each job and each employer’s financial situation, you’d be sure to find examples where you wouldn’t want to require this for that particular employer. Our biggest problem at the moment in California is 1.8 million people who are looking for work but can’t find it. We should be trying to make it more attractive to firms to hire more workers, not putting extra burdens on the enterprises that actually meet the payrolls and create the jobs.

Although I hate the word “required." There should be the employer commitment to a healthy business environment and, in return, the employee’s promise to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The bargain should be this: Employee gets health benefits if employee commits to certain benchmarks of health (weight range, regular checkups, flu shots, etc.). If the employee does not commit or fails proscribed benchmarks, they are not covered, or not as beneficially. In that way, the employer is able to select and retain the most cost effective health insurance.